This
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(3) and Local Rule 72-1, filed on April 5, 2018
(“Report and Recommendation”) (DE #61), and the
Motion to Allow (Interlocutory) Appeal, filed by pro
se Plaintiff, Aleksander Skarzynski, on April 16, 2018
(DE #73). For the reasons set forth below, the motion (DE
#73) is DENIED, and the Report and
Recommendation (DE #61) is ADOPTED.
Accordingly, the Clerk is ORDERED to
DISMISS this case WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
filed a pro se qui tam complaint on October 21,
2014. Plaintiff served the Government, but none of the
defendants, with his complaint. The Court ordered the
Government to show cause as to why 31 U.S.C. §
3730(b)(4) had not been complied with. (DE #22.) After the
Government responded to the order to show cause, the Court
sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff's qui tam claims
and granted Plaintiff time in which to file an amended
complaint alleging only non-qui tam claims stemming from his
alleged wrongful termination. (DE #27.)

On
April 3, 2017, the Court accepted Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to serve it on the defendants
in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (DE
#30.) The Court extended the deadline for service of the
Amended Complaint, first on Plaintiff's motion and again
when it denied Plaintiff's motion to transfer. (DE #38,
DE #47.) The final deadline of August 18, 2017, expired
without any indication on the docket that any defendant has
been served. On February 22, 2018, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to show cause why he had not complied with the
Court's Orders to serve the defendants. (DE #53.)
Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause, but failed to
address service of the Amended Complaint on the defendants.
Magistrate Judge Martin issued the Report and Recommendation
on April 5, 2018, recommending dismissal without prejudice,
and notifying Plaintiff that he had fourteen days to file
objections thereto. (DE #61.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed
several motions, including the instant motion for
interlocutory appeal of the Report and Recommendation on
April 17, 2018.[1] (DE #73.)

DISCUSSION

In
response to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a
motion to allow an interlocutory appeal of the Report and
Recommendation. “The proper method by which to
challenge a non-dispositive order is by filing an objection
or appeal of the Magistrate Judge's decision under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).” Westbrook
v. Bridges Cmty. Servs., No. 116CV02913TWPDML, 2017 WL
3503306, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 15, 2017). Because Plaintiff
proceeds pro se, “the Court liberally
construes his motion and the filing is treated as a timely
objection to the [Report and Recommendation], as opposed to a
motion for interlocutory appeal.” Id. (citing
Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir.
2001)). For the reasons below, the Court denies
Plaintiff's appeal of the Report and Recommendation.

When a
party makes objections to a magistrate judge's
recommendations, “the court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“[T]he court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” Id.; see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). Here, it is undisputed that the Court granted
Plaintiff time in which to serve the defendants with the
Amended Complaint, and that Plaintiff has not served any of
the defendants.

Plaintiff
claims that he timely served the original compliant on the
U.S. Attorney and Attorney General.[2] He alleges that he was
unable to serve the original complaint on the defendants
because the complaint was sealed. He argues that service of
the Amended Complaint would have been futile because
amendment does not restart the time to serve. (DE #73 at 13.)
It is true that “[t]he purpose of allowing complaints
to be amended is to enable the pleadings to be conformed to
the developing evidence rather than to extend the time for
service indefinitely.” Del Raine v. Carlson,
826 F.2d 698, 705 (7th Cir. 1987). However, Rule 4(m) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if a defendant
is not served within the applicable time limit, the court
“must dismiss the action without prejudice against that
defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (emphasis added).
Thus, Rule 4(m) authorizes courts to provide additional time
for service “even if there is no good cause
shown.” Notes of the Advisory Committee on 1993
Amendments to Rule 4(m). Here, the Court ordered Plaintiff to
serve the Amended Complaint within a specified time.
Plaintiff did not do so, despite being provided with multiple
extensions.

Plaintiff
asserts that he cannot serve the Amended Complaint because
his right-to-sue letter was stolen, and without the
right-to-sue letter, defendant Community Care Network, Inc.
(“Community”) can object to the
claim.[3] But “a plaintiff is not required to
attach a right-to-sue letter to her complaint.”
Sturgill v. Schneider Elec., No. 1:17-CV-500-TLS,
2018 WL 1257441, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 12, 2018) (citations
omitted); see Swoope v. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp., No.
2:10-CV-423-RL, 2012 WL 3732838, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 28,
2012) (same). Thus, Plaintiff's current lack of a copy of
his right-to-sue letter does not excuse him from serving the
Amended Complaint on the defendants.

The
Court finds no basis for excusing Plaintiff from his duty to
comply with the time frame set forth by the Court. It is
undisputed that Plaintiff failed to serve any of the
defendants with the Amended Complaint by the deadline of
August 18, 2017. Plaintiff has offered no evidence of any
attempt to serve any of the defendants. Since the final
deadline by which to serve the defendants has long expired,
it does not appear that Plaintiff has proceeded diligently
with his case as required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

CONCLUSION

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff&#39;s motion (DE #73) is
DENIED and the report and recommendation (DE
#61) is ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Clerk is
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.